NousResearch/hermes-agent
cached agent reuse disabling inactivity timeout fix
Cluster 15654. Data as of
Nothing open on GitHub. Fix merged in #16116 on 26 Apr 2026. Check it covers your case.
The short answer
0open issues
0open PRs
3items grouped
- Known?
- Yes. 3 related items grouped here, 1 issue already closed.
- Fix event
- A fix was merged to main in PR #16116. Check it covers your case. No release data is tracked.
- Tracker
- The maintainers' tracker marks this
resolved, deciding PR #16116. That is separate from the fix event. - Still open
- Nothing open on GitHub.
A bug where cached agent reuse silently disables the inactivity timeout, causing an infinite 'Still working' loop after user interrupt. A fix preserves the inactivity clock across interrupt-recursive cached-agent turns.
Open issues0
Open PRs0
Fixes on record
-
#16116 fix(gateway): preserve inactivity clock on interrupt-recursive cached-agent turns (#15654)
files:
gateway/run.py,tests/gateway/test_agent_cache.py
1 PR closed without merging
From the close comments: done elsewhere 1
-
#15807 fix(gateway): preserve inactivity clock on interrupt-recursive cached-agent turns (#15654) · done elsewhere →
#1
Closed issues · 1
- Closed#15654Cached agent reuse silently disables the inactivity timeout, producing a Still working iteration 0/60 (cached) loop after user interrupt
How this cluster was grouped
-
Link evidence (
structural links throughout): every member is connected by structural evidence: shared changed files, or a closing/superseded reference. -
Pairwise link density
0.67: the share of item pairs that carry a link, counting a structural link in full and a relevance-only link at 0.36.1.00means every pair is linked.
Pick up a Lab task
Check whether a fix covers the open issues here, with your own agent. Bring back evidence for maintainers.
Open the LabAt a glance
- Merged PRs
- #16116
- Closed issues
- 1
- Attempts
- 1 PR closed without merging
- Fix link checked
- 26 Apr 2026. This confirmation is old and may be out of date (a revert or reopen would not have invalidated it here); re-verify.